County Sheriff Can Bust Big Bro

Keene Free Press ^ | February 16, 2007 | Dave Ribinson

[Born In America]

The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official.

This is settled law that most people are not aware of.

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

[Born In America]

I heard this today on Quinn &Rose. The link here took me to the Keene Free Press where the body of the thread is located. It is interesting reading for those who are tuned into the efforts underway to disassemble our Constitution. Good to see someone who knows better standing up for what belongs to the people.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=121592

[BnBlFlag]

This is great news!

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Thanks for posting that. That story is a huge encouragement! We should pass it along to our county officials in all states, exhorting them to “go and so likewise”.

I think I’ll start here in Harris County, Texas.

[NonValueAdded]

Very interesting but I suspect there is a long appeals process in store before all is said and done.

[Resolute Conservative]

Good luck with that. I would not trust some local deputies ( or the Sheriff ) as far as I could throw them when to comes to large scale investigations of local prominent citizens or issues with national security secrets.

[TCats]

It is good news. The downside is that in too many instances County Sheriff’s Dept. are centers for cronyism and corruption.

[Concho]

I love it.

That sure could back up stuff with the IRS and ATF Nazis. Lets hope that this catches on nation wide.

[Born In America]

I heard it once said that the corruption on the federal level is nothing compared to state and local government. But, there is an advantage in that the people are much closer to their elected officials and in my view if held to account would have to be more receptive. It bears consideration when the people vote for their elected officials if they do the necessary research to determine a candidates views and/or policies.

I particularly like the quote from the pre-linked article, "The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.”

Go back and re-read this quote. fii ffndaid

[orchid]

I suggest that you and everyone else read the next page of the Keene Free Press post. It appears the story is BOGUS.

[whatexit]

Thanks for the link! I heard it the show this morning also.

[Born In America]

Oops, I did not look at page two. Maybe I should forward it to Quinn. He spent a segment on it this am and perhaps he did not throughly vet the article as well. Sorry for the error.

[freedomwarrior998]

Hoax, one dating all the way back to 1996. I cannot believe that Conservatives continually seem to lack the critical reasoning skills necessary to see through stuff like this. It is almost as if individuals think that if they believe something long enough it will magically become true.

People we are better than this. Liberals think with emotions, Conservatives are supposed to think critically, and with LOGIC! (Although I will admit that it's usually paultards and libertines who get caught up in this stuff.)

http://www.holtorf.com/Ray/Castaneda%20v.%20US%2096cv99.pdf

United States District Court District of Wyoming

Our office has been receiving inquiries regarding the case of Castaneda v. United States, No. 96-CV-099.

This was a civil case arising out of an alleged entry into an apartment by law enforcement officials in June of 1993. The Plaintiffs, who were staying in the apartment, alleged that the officials violated their civil rights. They filed an action against the United States, unnamed INS agents, Big Horn County, the County Sheriff, and unnamed Sheriff's deputies.

The complaint was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming in May,1996. The federal defendants were primarily represented by attorneys with the Constitutional Torts Branch of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. The County defendants were represented by non-federal attorneys. The case was settled following a settlement conference in 1997. The court did not rule on Plaintiffs' claims or any other legal issues in the case. After the settlement conference, Big Horn County Sheriff, David M. Mattis, issued a "Policy."

In the "Policy," the Sheriff purports to impose conditions upon federal law enforcement operations in the County. We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such Ruling or decision. Instead, the court simply granted a motion, submitted jointly by all the parties, to dismiss the case because the parties had settled.

This Court has never issued an order which would serve to limit the lawful activities and duties of federal law enforcement officers and other federal employees in the District of Wyoming.

Furthermore, this Court has never made the comments attributed to it which purports to advise state officers they can prohibit federal law enforcement officers or agents from entering a Wyoming County. Those alleged quotations are utterly false.

Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of their duties subjects themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution.

William F. Downes Chief Judge, District of Wyoming

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

This is great news!

Yessir. Got me a big 'ol smile on m'face.

[Apercu]

Barney Fife vs. Elliot Ness.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

I don’t believe it. The “96” in the case number indicates this case is twelve years old, not two. I plugged the case number into google and found references to it dating back to 1997.

From http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive86.htm:

quote:

February 26, 2005

Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
NewsWithViews.com

A new bill has been introduced in the Montanta State Legislature which require the County Sheriff be notified before any federal agents are allowed to enter the state with the intention of carrying out law enforcement actions. The bill provides not only for pre-notification, but the Sheriff must also give consent before federal agents may proceed.

A similar action took place back on April 15, 1997, Big Horn County, Wyoming when Sheriff Dave Mattis issued a new policy regarding federal law enforcement personnel:

Federal law enforcement personnel need to notify Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office in advance of any federal law enforcement operation in Big Horn County, Wyoming.

Sheriff’s Office requests the following information before the Sheriff determines whether the Sheriff’s Office will be involved:

An identification of the individuals or residences to be searched or arrested if known.

An identification of the agencies and personnel to be involved in the overall operation contemplated by the federal law enforcement agency.

An identification of the chain of command for the operation or planned activity.

An identification of the translator if those to be arrested or subject to search are not expected to be fluent in English.

Determine the time of day of proposed arrest or search.

The Sheriff’s Office will inquire of federal law enforcement personnel in charge to confirm that the federal law enforcement agency in good faith has probable cause for any potential searches and arrests prior to any such search or arrest of which the Sheriffs Office gains knowledge.

The Sheriff’s Office will discourage federal law enforcement arrests or searches after 10:00 P.M. unless exigent circumstances exist.

If assistance is provided, the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office will:

Have direct radio communication capability with the Sheriff’s Dispatch during all searches and arrests. Report any observed violation of civil rights to the Sheriff’s Dispatch contemporaneously. Keep dispatcher logs. Prepare after action reports within 48 hours. Conduct thorough investigation of any alleged civil rights violations.

This new policy by Sheriff Mattis was a result of a U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J) and announced that all federal officials were forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval stating: “If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody.”

end quote.

Obviously the 1997 guidelines above were instituted based on a 1996 case, not a 2006 case.

I found another website which states that the case was settled, not adjudicated, which if true means the case is not precedent. Other links make me wonder if what is being referenced as the Judge’s ruling is really argument of one of the attorneys.

Although the article and the links refer to upholding the US and Wyoming Constitutions, there’s nothing in the article or the links that shows how the ruling, if it was a ruling, is grounded in the US Constitution, or the Wyoming Constitution, or any case law.

This particular case seems to have been around a dozen years and not gone much of anywhere. There’s another link to Wyoming legislation introduced in 2002 or 2003, based on the same case, but where did that legislation go?

So why are all these events from the 90s and early 2000s being trumpeted now, in 2008, and the case misrepresented as a fairly recent case, when it is a dozen years old?

I know the “county is the highest form of legitimate governmental power” argument has a long association with militia and tax freedom types. I remember hearing it back in the mid 1990s, so this sort of story would obviously have some appeal. But it sounds like someone may be trying to cobble together a story, or a legal argument, out of parts that don’t fit — a practice quite prevalent among the militia and tax freedom types, btw.

[freedomwarrior998]

You are right. This is a hoax. See above.

[Resolute Conservative]

In a perfect world I agree with the Wyoming courts. However your premise that the elected officials are closer to the electorate thus accountable is a pipe dream. Good examples are Chicago ( any major city really ) and something I am familiar with south Texas. Good luck on keeping any investigation quiet once you tell a deputy or Sheriff down there ( I’ll say there are exceptions ). Not only do they protect ( or look the other way ) when it comes to big donors but also their loser family members as well. There are cases when the locals are co-conspirators.

It needs to be a balance. There are times when you tell the Sheriff or local chief and times you dare not.

I will say that I doubt the Sheriff needs to know anything that the IRS is doing. As far as mainstream violent or crime against persons that the FBI, DEA, BATF investigate it is a judgment call. I would also say that ICE investigations are not the business of the locals when they may have family members that are illegal or a large portion of their constituents do.

[nitzy]

It is good news. The downside is that in too many instances County Sheriff’s Dept. are centers for cronyism and corruption.

I'm just glad the federal government is above cronyism and corruption!

[TCats]

Did not say, or even imply that.

Corruption and cronyism IS present a Federal levels but it is usually subject to much more scrutiny by well armed scrutinizers than Local/County level fiefdoms are. Hence, it is subject to better disclosure IMO.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

“I cannot believe that Conservatives continually seem to lack the critical reasoning skills necessary to see through stuff like this. It is almost as if individuals think that if they believe something long enough it will magically become true. “

Well said, Freedom Warrior. This bogus story was news to me, but the reference to the “county as the highest form of government” and the obvious faking of the date of the 1996 case as a 2006 case tipped me off immediately, so I just plugged the case number into google, and the story began falling apart.

In the early 1990s I read a book about a California “militia” man, one of whose acolytes robbed a bank and killed a sheriff or a CHP officer. I can’t remember the name if it, or the characters involved, but the author was a reporter for the Sacto or Modesto or Fresno Bee newspaper. It was fairly sympathetic to the the Militia man, but it showed a lot of the belief systems of the militia and tax freedom subculture.

For those who have been taken in by this story, as a primer to these sorts of beliefs, there is a good compendium at:

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments

By Bernard J. Sussman, JD, MLS, CP

http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp